SI 80 SV2 Silicon Valley Social Venture Fund 060113

8/11/2019 SI 80 SV2 Silicon Valley Social Venture Fund 060113

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/si-80-sv2-silicon-valley-social-venture-fund-060113 1/16

CASE: SI-80

DATE: 09/14/05 (R EV’D 02/13/07, 06/01/13)

Lecturer Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen and Victoria Chang prepared this case as the basis for class discussion ratherthan to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of an administrative situation. The Stanford Graduate Schoolof Business gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Giving 2.0 (giving2.com) in the development of this case.

Copyright © 2013 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. Publically available free

cases are distributed through ecch.com. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,

used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any means –– electronic, mechanical, photocopying,

recording, or otherwise –– without permission of the Stanford Graduate School of Business. Every effort has been

made to respect copyright and to contact copyright holders as appropriate. If you are a copyright holder and have

concerns, please contact the Case Writing Office at [email protected] or write to the Case Writing Office,

Stanford Graduate School of Business, Knight Management Center, 655 Knight Way, Stanford University, Stanford,

CA 94305-5015.

SV2: SILICONVALLEY SOCIALVENTURE FUND

The essence of what SV2 does is building capacity—we build the organizational capacity

of our grantees, the philanthropic capacity of our partners, and the knowledge capacity

of our field…. Philanthropy is not just about writing a check anymore; it’s about gettingout at the ground level, doing due diligence, and working directly with nonprofits in a

mutually accountable relationship.

—Laura Arrillaga, Founder and Chairman SV2

In 1998, Laura Arrillaga launched the Silicon Valley Social Venture Fund (SV2) with twoobjectives: (1) providing Silicon Valley donors with philanthropic experience and education thatwould empower their personal giving, and (2) awarding local nonprofits with multi-year,capacity building grants that would help them to strengthen their organizations and meet thehigher level of accountability associated with contemporary philanthropic investments. SV2followed a venture philanthropy partnership model in which investors pooled their money to givelarge, multi-year grants to nonprofits and also served in consulting and advisory roles to help

grantees meet their capacity building goals.

Arrillaga created SV2 in partnership with Community Foundation Silicon Valley (CFSV), anationally recognized public foundation that had experience working with individual donors, aswell as established credibility within the philanthropic field.1 Under the leadership of PresidentPeter Hero, CFSV had become known for its strategy of engaging individuals through donor-

1 Community foundations are tax-exempt, publicly supported philanthropic institutions composed primarily of

permanent funds established by many separate donors for the long-term charitable benefit of the residents of a

specific geographic area. Typically, a community foundation serves an area no larger than a state and provides an

array of services and support to donors and nonprofits.



SV2: Silicon Valley Social Venture Fund SI-80 p. 2

advised funds that allowed donors to recommend grantees while CFSV managed all relatedadministrative processes. Arrillaga formed SV2 under CFSV’s organizational umbrella to ensurethat CFSV staff would help guide SV2 partners in leveraging their expertise and funding toselect community organizations, thus generating the greatest social impact. With initial supportfrom CFSV secured, Arrillaga recruited a high-profile team as SV2’s founding board membes.

These individuals included Kevin Fong, a fellow GSB alumnus and managing general partner atthe Mayfield Fund; Steve Kirsch, founder of Infoseek; Chris Alden, co-founder of the Red Herring Magazine; and Lisa Sobrato Sonsini, president of the Sobrato Family Foundation.

By 2005, Arrillaga, along with CFSV staff had built a volunteer-driven organization composedof 160 partners ranging in age from mid-20s to mid-60s. In total, SV2 had donated up to

$450,000 annually to support 13 local grantees ! for an aggregate grantmaking total of $2

million.2 Moreover, SV2 had implemented two professionally facilitated strategic planning processes in its short history. In the future, Arrillaga and her team desired to continuously evolvethe organization; in particular, to improve SV2’s partner consulting program to better leverage partner expertise to benefit grantees. They also wondered how to more fully engage partners in

SV2’s grantmaking and educational activities while increasing SV2’s accountability to grantees, partners, and the broader philanthropic community.

INITIAL ORGANIZATION, LEADERSHIP, AND GRANTMAKING MODELS

Since SV2’s inception, its leaders had built the organization to mirror the high-tech sector inSilicon Valley, with a flat organizational structure and collaborative decision-making processes.The original governing body of SV2, the board of managers chaired by Arrillaga, embodied thisSilicon Valley spirit. In its first two years, the board of managers organized its efforts aroundeight committees, including Grants; Membership; Inform, Communicate, and Educate; Impact;and Finance. Committees typically established their own meeting schedules.

During its nascent years, grant committees were lead and driven by SV2 partners who shared passion and interest around specific social issues. Committees would complete extensive sectorresearch, invite field experts to provide issue overviews, and visit multiple nonprofits to assessgrant opportunities. The Grants committee also convened for each grant cycle to review letters ofintent and applications from potential grantees, research applicants, conduct nonprofit site visits,and continue ongoing grantee support.

SV2’s other committees focused on similarly targeted activities. The Membership committeedirected all issues related to the recruitment and retention of SV2 partners. The Inform,Communicate, and Educate team coordinated all of SV2’s educational lectures, seminars, and partner events. The Impact teams, consisting of three to five partners each, provided granteeswith expertise in organizational management, financial management, board leadership,fund/revenue development, and marketing/communications. The Finance committee managedSV2’s finances, including the budget and investment management.

2 SV2 had also given several other smaller grants for one-time-only program support through its Community Grants

program.




The SV2 Board consisted of the chair or co-chair of each SV2 committee and a select number ofother SV2 partners. Despite the organization’s spirit of collaboration, the initial start-up periodrelied heavily on the founder and SV2’s staff. Arrillaga served as SV2’s executive director 4 and board chairman, and she personally drove its vision, strategy, leadership, and implementationduring its first decade.

GRANTMAKING OVERVIEW AND EVOLUTION

Types of Grants

SV2’s major grant program was called the “STRENGTH” grant program (Socially-minded TeamResponsible for Enabling Nonprofits to Grow and Thrive). SV2 STRENGTH grants were made by invitation only (invitations were extended by both SV2 partners and the CFSV grantmakingstaff), and unsolicited proposals were not accepted. Typically, SV2 had two to four grant cyclesannually where each cycle had a specific focus area, determined by the partners through majorityvote. STRENGTH grants ranged from $120,000 to $225,000 and were paid incrementally overthree-year periods (sometimes exceptions were made if a grantee required more immediate

funding), provided that the organization met established benchmarks and was able to implementchanges.

STRENGTH grant recipients could only receive funding once, and they were required to provideservice in Santa Clara and/or Southern San Mateo counties. Grant recipients needed to addressthe current SV2 focus areas, which changed annually, and apply their funding to “growstrategically and strengthen their operations in order to more significantly impact the communityand the clients they serve; …address internal issues and make systemic changes…[that would]likely affect external activities, be willing to evaluate their programs and measure results; andhave strong leadership, visionary ideas and community impact.”5

More specifically, STRENGTH grants could be used for activities that changed and/orstrengthened the way nonprofits did business, such as creating new revenue streams, developingdifferent service delivery or community relations systems, engaging in collaborative work,taking operations to a bigger scale, and/or overhauling internal operations. In addition, grantscould be used to improve organizational effectiveness through activities such as hiringconsultants, adding staff, implementing new technology, training board and staff, and strategic planning. In terms of initial grant evaluation methods, CFSV conducted evaluations of SV2’sSTRENGTH grantees on an annual basis and presented a report to SV2’s partners. In addition,grantees provided SV2 with an annual mid-year report.

In 2004, SV2 instituted $25,000 community grants, which were smaller grants that utilizedCFSV’s existing grantmaking process and procedures. Because CFSV conducted extensive duediligence on more potential grantees than they could fund, SV2 decided to consider CFSV grant proposals for this new grantmaking round. CFSV’s program staff reviewed the potential grantees before presenting them to SV2 partners, facilitating a streamlined decision-making process and

4 Arrillaga did not receive compensation of any kind for her service, but rather donated her time and expertise to

SV2.5 Silicon Valley Social Venture Fund, “What We Do: Grant Guidelines,” http://www.sv2.org/whatwedo/index.html

(August 16, 2006).




presenting partners with an opportunity to engage in a one-time only grantmaking commitment.SV2’s leadership created these smaller grants to supplement the two annual STRENGTH grantsand expand partner learning opportunities. These grants also enabled early stage nonprofits thatdid not have the infrastructure to receive a larger grant to have exposure to and funding fromSV2 partners. These smaller community grants did not have SV2 liaisons (see below) and were

for periods of one year only (no renewal).

Partner Membership and Grantmaking

Investors joined SV2 after completing an interview and online application that demonstratedtheir commitment to philanthropy and desire to make an impact on Silicon Valley. Once potential investors were approved, they were required to donate a minimum of $2,500 annuallyfor two consecutive years as a “Contributing Partner.” Higher levels included a “GrowthPartner” who donated $5,000 annually for two consecutive years, a “Sustaining Partner” whodonated $12,500 annually for two consecutive years, and a “Leading Partner” who donated$25,000 annually for two consecutive years. SV2’s funds were invested in CFSV’s moneymarket pool, which consisted of short-term liquid investment vehicles. This meant that SV2 didnot develop an endowment but rather adopted a “pass-through fund” model that enabled it togrant all of the money raised each year. Arrillaga did ensure, however, that SV2 always had atleast one year’s operating expenses in its reserves, in case of an economic downtown ororganizational transition.

SV2 partners were expected to participate in monthly partner meetings and encouraged, but notrequired, to join SV2’s committees. SV2 also encouraged its partners to utilize their expertise towork more closely with grantees. To facilitate such contributions, SV2 created a list of potentialareas where partners could provide assistance, including organizational management (e.g.,strategic planning/business planning and corporate reorganization), financial management (e.g.,funding strategy; grant applications; and budgeting, accounting and reporting), marketing and

public relations, technology, direct services (specific needs identified by grantee), and granteffectiveness evaluation (e.g., to specify metrics and benchmarks and create reporting formatsand procedures).

In return for their financial investment and intellectual expertise, partners at all levels receivedseveral benefits including educational seminars on philanthropy and community issues, hands-on philanthropic learning opportunities for the entire family, pooled giving for greater granteeimpact, and networking with peers. In addition, Sustaining and Leading Partners had theopportunity to attend exclusive dinners with notable philanthropists in the area. SV2 partnerscould engage in whatever manner best matched their available capacity and comfort level.

In 2002, coinciding with the arrival of Bjorn Stromsness and Kelly Porter (the new board co-chair), as well as SV2’s first formal strategic planning exercise, SV2 decided to reassess its partner engagement in grantmaking. “We didn’t have a high partner engagement structurearound our grantmaking, and we were not meeting our mission as successfully as we could,”noted Arrillaga. One of the key changes after this strategic planning exercise involved shiftingfrom smaller, irregular partner meetings organized around committees to a formalized monthlycalendar (second Tuesday of every month) in which all partners could participate. This modelengaged a much larger partner group, further democratizing the grantmaking process (i.e.,




partner involvement shifted from 12 people to 38 people in just one grant round). Partners werenot required to attend monthly meetings, but the regular formalized structure dramaticallyincreased partner engagement in writing guidelines, conducting due diligence, attending sitevisits, and voting on grant proposals.

Additionally, SV2 implemented the “liaison” role for each grantee, assigning one or two partnerswho acted as a connection between that grantee and SV2. A liaison worked with a particulargrantee for the term of the grant, typically three years, beginning with the development of grantagreements/contracts based on grantee priorities and SV2 resources. The grant agreementestablished expectations, goals, and benchmarks for both parties. During the life of the grant,liaisons met with the executive director or the grant manager at the grantee organization at leastonce a month either by phone or in person. Theoretically, liaisons also could be involved in the process of generating grantee evaluation reports for the benefit of CFSV. As previouslymentioned, liaisons had their own support network called the “Impact Committee,” which metseveral times per year to discuss issues with particular grantees and share lessons learned. TheImpact Committee was led by a chair (a SV2 board position) who checked in with liaisons

several times per quarter. The Impact Committee could recommend mid-course changes, butonly the board could terminate a grant.

Partner Engagement and Grantmaking Evolution

Since 2002, SV2 had utilized an annual survey for various internal evaluation purposes. Initially,the survey was distributed to partners to determine the areas of grantmaking focus. However, in2003, the survey expanded to include partner satisfaction questions, as well. In 2004, the survey played an even broader role, coinciding with SV2’s new governance and leadership model.

As of 2005, the process for selecting SV2’s annual areas of focus consisted of two phases. Aninitial survey identified two broad grantmaking areas, such as children and social safety net

services, which the partners wished to support during the annual grantmaking rounds. Followingan educational philanthropy forum, SV2 identified a grant-round leader, a partner who wouldserve as a facilitator for meetings related to the upcoming grant round. Within a smaller meetingoutside of the greater philanthropy forum (open to all partners), program staff, the grant roundleader, and additional partners (approximately eight people) developed grantmaking guidelinesto narrow down the focus area (e.g., from environment to open space conversation or fromeducation to adult literacy).

Once the grantmaking guidelines were published to the entire SV2 partnership, partners couldidentify potential grantees to be nominated for application. Partners generally provided five toseven potential grantees, and CFSV provided another five to seven. All of the nominated

organizations were invited to a meeting to become better acquainted with the organization andexpectations associated with being an SV2 grantee. The grants committee specified up front thatthe SV2 model entails a high-engagement, mutually accountable grantor-grantee relationship.After the initial meeting, organizations that were still interested in “not just receiving a check”developed their proposals, with the opportunity to consult SV2/CFSV staff with further questionsif needed.




After proposals were submitted, another group of partners discussed the merits of the various proposals and narrowed down the group of potential grantees to three finalists. The finalists werethen invited to present their proposals to the general partnership during a regular SV2-wideTuesday meeting. After the presentation, several partners conducted site visits with the threefinalists and prepared written one-page reports that were posted on SV2’s Web site, along with

finalist applications. During the following regular Tuesday meeting, partners voted on the finalgrant recipient after an open debate (majority ruled).

GOVERNANCE MODEL AND EVOLUTION

In January 2004 Arrillaga initiated a four-month “governance overhaul” by putting together anad-hoc leadership committee including several of SV2’s most philanthropically experienced partners. Although the strategic focus of SV2 remained unchanged, the team decided that theorganization needed a new leadership model that more effectively engaged board members.Arrillaga commented, “It took us nearly five years to establish our infrastructure. Initially, ourinfrastructure and governance models were based on our strategic goals, but it wasn’t until wehad our infrastructure and a set of organizational models, processes, and policies, that we couldrevisit our governance model. We asked ourselves, ‘How can we change our leadership structureto better meet our own objectives, and how can we increase our own accountability?’ Wedecided that we needed to expand and diversify our leadership and increase boardaccountability.”

Originally, SV2’s board members were in charge of various committees. In 2004, SV2 revampedits board structure to consist of a chairman (Arrillaga) with an executive committee consisting ofthe chairman and four vice chairs (grantmaking; partnership; membership; and finance and partner orientation) and also recruited a completely new board. The new board of directors had15 members, including the executive committee (five people), each with specific areas offunctional responsibility. Functional areas included strategic planning implementation; impact

committee chair; new partner engagement; community grants; philanthropy education; annualmeeting; philanthropic strategies and partnerships; accountability; grant investment leverage; andmarketing and technology strategy.

Arrillaga commented on the governance shift: “We went from the leadership of a few to theleadership of many. Since that shift, our organizational evolution has been at the highest rate ofany point during SV2’s history.” The transition proved instrumental in bring new ideas,innovation, and energy to SV2’s leadership, while still preserving its mission and core culture.

The involvement and ownership of the partner consulting program by board member NelsonCheng provided one example of the impact the governance shift had on board member

engagement. As the new board member in charge of grant investment leverage (positionestablished in 2005), Cheng focused on improving SV2’s value-add to grantees and leveragingthe skills of SV2’s partners through grantee consulting. Cheng worked with the grantees toidentify needs and develop consulting opportunities that were both valuable to the grantee and ofinterest to partners. Cheng served as a key “connector” between grantees and partners, a formalhigh-engagement link that had not existed prior to 2005.




created their own goals and metrics — resulted in greater board involvement and, therefore,organizational evolution, than SV2 had experienced to date. The board was then able to report tothe partnership how SV2 progressed against each institutional objective. These reports includedsuccesses, challenges, course corrections and improvements.

Revised Mission, Vision, and Values

As part of the 2005 strategic planning process, SV2 re-evaluated its mission, vision, and values.SV2 adjusted its original mission from: “By activating new donors and creating philanthropicleaders, SV2 is a network which leverages its collective intellectual, financial, and leadershipcapital to make a positive, measurable, and strategic difference in the Silicon Valley community”to a 2005 mission: “SV2 is a donor network that leverages its financial, intellectual, and humancapital to make a meaningful, measurable impact in Silicon Valley. SV2 does this bystrengthening the organizational capacity of its grantees and the philanthropic capacity of its partners.” Similarly, the vision and values were refined and made more specific.

Self-Assessment: One and Three-Year Objectives and Indicators

In addition to re-evaluating its mission, vision, and values, SV2 hoped to utilize the 2005strategic plan as a way to lay the groundwork for ongoing self-assessment. As briefly indicatedabove, for the first time in its history, SV2 developed one-year and three-year objectives andindicators for each of its executive committee members and board members. One-year objectiveswere clearly defined; for example, one of Nelson Cheng’s objectives for his role as vice chair ofgrant investment leverage was to “define and execute the partner consulting beta program.”Indicators specified ways to measure achievement against objectives, such as “…one or moreorganization(s) in the beta program with project(s) in progress by end of February 2005.” Three-year objectives and indicators were longer-term. For example, Cheng’s three-year objective wasto “grow and sustain the partner consulting program,” and the indicator was that “80 percent of

grantees have had a project completed (with 100 percent aware of the program), 20 or more partners have completed a project, and three or more case studies developed.” Cheng’sindicators provided benchmarks against which the ongoing progress of the partner consulting program could be measured and its practices adjusted as needed.

Grantee Evaluations and New Accountability Board Position

Besides creating a formalized process for self-assessment, the 2005 strategic planning processled to an increased focus on evaluating the impact of SV2’s grantmaking. Even thoughevaluations were something that SV2 had always recognized as important, issues pertaining to itsenvironmental sustainability grantee, Natural Step, contributed to SV2’s new emphasis on

accountability. A reduction in external foundation support negatively affected the Natural Step’sability to meet its fundraising goals and strategic objectives. However, the organization did notmake SV2 or other funders aware of their changed financial status until it had already ceasedoperations. While the grant committee hoped that these were accounting or reporting errors, theliaisons ultimately discovered these were significant organizational issues that did not circulate back to CFSV or SV2.




For the most part, SV2 developed successful relationships with grantees; however, in two otherinstances, SV2 modified its relationships with grantees (Project Help, Partners in Reading). WithProject Help, misaligned expectations for progress toward grant objectives (as outlined in theinitial contract) resulted in the termination of funding at the close of the first year. The situationhighlighted the need for greater mutual accountability and a willingness on the part of both

grantees and SV2 to work toward common goals. Moving forward, SV2 renewed itscommitment to ongoing communication and collaboration with grantees, as well as itswillingness to adjust benchmarks, if needed. With Partners in Reading, for example, thegrantee’s main staff member developed breast cancer. With an already small staff of sixmembers, Partners in Reading was unable to fulfill its grant contract with SV2 and requested asix-month extension, which SV2 honored. Both situations led to refinements and improvementsto the grantmaking and grant management processes.

Despite issues with three grantees, according to Arrillaga, by 2005 SV2 was at the “apex of itsaccountability to date.” SV2 had invested significant time and energy developing grantmakingscreens, ongoing benchmark development, and reporting systems to ensure our partners and

grantees received the greatest bang for their philanthropic buck.”

Initially CFSV conducted evaluations of SV2’s grantees on an annual basis and presented themin the annual report to SV2’s partners. In addition, grantees provided SV2 with a mid-year reporteach year. But SV2’s board did not feel those processes would meets its heightenedaccountability levels. Consequently, one of the adjustments to grant evaluations, developedthrough the 2005 strategic planning process, was the creation of a new board position and area offunctional responsibility called “Accountability” where one board member focused specificallyon grantmaking accountability. That individual’s role was to assist and strengthen the overallevaluation efforts of SV2. The board member would work with and assist the evaluations officerat CFSV to review interim and final reports submitted by SV2 grantees.

Prior to the role of an accountability-focused board member, the information loop could potentially be closed within the liaison-grantee relationship. But with the new accountability board position, SV2 hoped that information related to a grantee would have a formal mechanismto filter back to the board to ensure that the grantee was fulfilling its grant contract and that SV2was providing support that aligned with its grantees’ needs. Additionally, SV2 was in the processof developing case studies (to be used for reporting, marketing, and historical recording) on all ofits existing and past grantees. Arrillaga funded SV2 to hire “Stanford Fellows” (all of whichwere former students in her Stanford Graduate School of Business and University philanthropycourses) to complete these studies annually, which increased SV2’s transparency both internallyand externally.

THE FUTURE

By 2005, SV2 had surpassed its initial five-year start-up period and begun to gain momentum asan established philanthropic institution. Arrillaga said, “I don’t think at this point there is ashortfall or weakness that we aren’t proactively addressing. We have not solved every issue weface, but we certainly are making a conscious effort to address whatever weaknesses there are inour model.” Arrillaga cited one of her priorities as continuing to develop SV2’s capacity to provide partner consulting to grantee organizations, while encouraging partners to increase their




financial and volunteer contributions to the organization and its grantees. Arrillaga also noted theimportance of measuring the impact of partner consulting and developing incentives to help getmore partners involved. Looking to the future, Arrillaga hoped to further share the knowledgegained from SV2’s ongoing strategic evolution with other grantmaking and nonprofitorganizations in order to positively impact the greater philanthropic field.

ASSIGNMENT QUESTIONS

1. How should SV2 develop its partner consulting program to best leverage partners’ expertiseand meet grantee needs? What benchmarks should SV2 utilize to evaluate the partnerconsulting program’s effectiveness?

2. What effective fundraising practices or marketing and sales tactics could SV2 employ toincrease donors’ financial support for the organization?

3. What incentives could SV2 offer to increase partners’ contributions of time?

4.

What steps should SV2 take to increase its impact on the greater philanthropic and nonprofitcommunity?

5. What lessons from SV2’s own evolution could be particularly relevant to otherorganizations’ growth?




Exhibit 1

Mission, Vision, and Values

Original Mission

By activating new donors and creating philanthropic leaders, SV2 is a network which leveragesits collective intellectual, financial, and leadership capital to make a positive, measurable, andstrategic difference in the Silicon Valley community.

New Mission

SV2 is a donor network that leverages its financial, intellectual, and human capital to make ameaningful, measurable impact in Silicon Valley. SV2 does this by strengthening theorganizational capacity of its grantees and the philanthropic capacity of its partners.

Original Vision

• SV2 is an ever-widening circle of activated, new and seasoned philanthropists. Every

Partner is a successful and generous leader in his/her own right whose experience in SV2has allowed a difference to be made in our local community and beyond.

• Every SV2 partner is well educated concerning the public benefit sector and is

participating financially as well as voluntarily with public benefit corporations on a deep,focused, and impactful level.

• An SV2 partner's experiences in giving through SV2 build individual commitment for

lifelong philanthropy and for connection with the Community Foundation Silicon Valleyand/or other similar groups.

• Both partners and grantees reap great benefits from SV2. Partners have formed a close-

knit community with other developing philanthropists. Partners who joined early on arefully active in their own philanthropy apart from SV2, and other partners are followingsuit. We are fulfilling our spoken goals of producing "serial philanthropists."

• The recipients of our SV2 grants have demonstrated growth and development. Among

Public Benefit Corporations, SV2 has a reputation for awarding great grants that reallyhelp grow organizational capacity. Public Benefit Corporations are eager to receive SV2grants and to work with us.

• SV2 is the model for similar organizations across the country. We are recognized at the

local, state, and federal levels for our philanthropy and volunteerism. We have a well-developed template that is replicated elsewhere.

New Vision

• We envision a vital and vibrant Silicon Valley community that is innovative, inclusive,and increasingly philanthropic.

• We envision a nonprofit sector that is effective, accountable, and sustainable.

• We envision a growing partnership that is engaged, collaborative, and committed tocontinuous learning.

• We envision SV2 partners who are creative, informed, and inspired.




Original Values

• Community-focused: Always using the checkpoint of what we do against what is best forthe communities we represent.

•

Making an impact: Striving to make a positive, measurable difference in all we do andtouch – individuals, groups, and communities – as evidenced in the transfer of knowledgeand skills.

• Personal responsibility to the greater community: Remembering in all we do that we each

have a deep responsibility to reach out and help others around us.

• Open to the new and untried: Valuing the visions, thoughts, and directions which may at

first appear risky, unorthodox; really listening and considering all ideas.

• Partnership: Believing strongly in collaborating and in the power of collective efforts.

New Values

In SV2’s partnership with the greater philanthropic field, the Silicon Valley community, ourgrantees, and our individual partners, we are deeply committed to the following core principles:

• Building Knowledge

• Taking Initiative

• Celebrating Community

• Ensuring Accountability

• Fostering Respectfulness

Source: Information provided by SV2.




Exhibit 2

Select One-Year and Three-Year Objectives from 2005 Strategic Plan

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER EXAMPLE: VICE CHAIR OF PARTNERSHIP

Roles and Responsibilities

This executive committee member will oversee partner engagement within SV2 and hold primary responsibility for non-partner development activities, SV2 events and activities, andcalendar planning. Liaison for grant investment leverage, annual meeting & Cantor events, anddonor education.

Year One Objectives & Indicators

Objective 1:

Develop a Partner Engagement Action Plan. This plan will identify distinct actions that will be

taken to increase partner engagement at all levels within SV2 and ensure SV2 meets/exceeds itsstrategic goals related to partner engagement (see “SV2 Strategic Goals”). This plan will alsocontribute to a 10% annual increase in partner participation across the organization. This planwill be created through collaboration with other Vice-Chairs, including:

Vice Chair of GrantmakingVice Chair of MembershipAnnual Meeting & Cantor Event Board MemberPartner Education Board MemberGrant Investment Leverage Board MemberPhilanthropic Strategies & Partnerships Board MemberCommunity Grants Board Member

Marketing & Technology Strategy

Indicator 1: Complete Engagement Planning meeting, complete Partner Engagement Action Plan, and definedistinct actions by October 1, 2005.

Objective 2:

Communicate regularly with all partners, to keep them informed of ways they can becomeengaged in SV2 and its grantees.

Indicator 2:

Deliver content for the Chairman’s Update message.

Objective 3:

Working with staff support, ensure the delivery of a partnership satisfaction survey as part of thisyear’s annual partner survey.




Indicator 3:

Establish a baseline for partner satisfaction with 80% of partners rating their satisfaction a 4 or 5on a 5-point scale.

Objective 4:

Work with Vice-Chair of Membership, Chairman and other board members to decrease rate of partner attrition.

Indicator 4:

Attrition rate for SV2 partners is no more than 10% through fiscal year 2005-2006.

Year Three Objectives & Indicators

Objective 1:

Continue annual Partner Engagement Action Planning with the relevant vice chairs and boardmembers. This annual meeting will refine and improve specific activities and efforts to increase partner engagement and meet/exceed SV2 strategic goals.

Indicator 1:

Measure new partner satisfaction through annual survey questions.

Objective 2:

Deliver an annual partnership satisfaction survey. Use baseline results from year one to measureimprovements in subsequent years.

Indicator 2:

Completion of survey and presentation of results to the board and partners.

BOARD MEMBER EXAMPLE: ACCOUNTABILITY

Roles & Responsibilities

This board member will assist and strengthen the overall evaluation efforts of SV2. Workingwith and assisting the Evaluations Officer at CFSV, this board member will review interim andfinal reports submitted by SV2 grantees and will work with CFSV staff and the SV2 Chairman tooversee the development of formal case studies to document success and challenges. This boardmember will also review the SV2 Annual Report produced by CFSV staff each February.EC Liaison: Vice-Chair of Grantmaking

One-Year Objectives and Indicators

Objective 1:Working with the Stanford Fellow and Evaluations Officer, this board member will review allfinal and interim grantee reports submitted to SV2.




Indicator 1:This board member will contribute a section on the reports to the SV2 Annual Report.

Objective 2:This position will work with the Evaluations Officer and Stanford Fellow to oversee the creation

of formal case studies for all concluded grants.

Indicator 2:Formal three-page case studies for the SV2 current grantee portfolio will be produced.

Three-Year Objectives and Indicators

Objective 1:This board member will review SV2’s information gathering activities to look for the base-lineinformation we should be collecting to increase our accountability.

Indicator 1: New measures will be introduced into our information gathering process.

Objective 2:Working with the Stanford Fellow and Evaluations Officer, this board member will continue toreview all final and interim grantee reports submitted to SV2.

Indicator 2:This board member will contribute a section on these reports to the SV2 Annual Report.

Objective 3:

This position will work with the Evaluations Officer and Stanford Fellow to oversee the creationof formal case studies for all concluded grants.

Indicator 3:Each grant that is concluded will have a case study produced.

Objective 4:

Working with CFSV staff and any interns, this position will ensure that case studies arecompleted for all organizations three years after the close of their SV2 grants.

Indicator 4:

Case studies are completed for each grantee that is three years out from the completion of theirSV2 grant.





Exhibit 3

Functional Areas of Responsibility for Board of Directors

Chairman – The Chairman oversees the overall direction and operations of SV2. The Chairman also

chairs the Executive Committee and Board of Directors.

Vice Chair of Membership – This executive committee member is tasked with ensuring that SV2continues to bring new individuals into the partnership that are genuinely interested in the Mission,

Vision, and Values of SV2.

Vice Chair of Partnership – This executive committee member is responsible for ensuring that the SV2

experience for partners is interesting, engaging, and educational.

Vice Chair of Grantmaking – This executive committee member leads SV2’s efforts to make impactfulinvestments in our community and ensures that the grantmaking process runs smoothly and is respectful

of all parties involved.

Vice Chair of Finance and New Partner Orientation – This executive committee member reviews and

monitors the financial position of SV2 and helps to guarantee that each new SV2 partner is welcomed into

the organization and made aware of opportunities to fully engage in the partnership.

Strategic Planning Implementation – This board member will participate on the Strategic PlanningCommittee and lead the implementation of the plan in 2005. S/he will be the point of contact for the Vice

Chairs to monitor progress toward the implementation of the plan.

Impact Committee Chair – This board member will act as Chair of the Impact Committee, consisting of

the Liaisons to SV2 grantees.

Community Grants – This board member will facilitate both of the SV2 Community Grants meetings

annually.

Philanthropy Education – This board member will keep the partnership appraised of educationalopportunities.

Annual Meeting/Cantor Event – This board member will help coordinate and promote our two largest

events, the Cantor Event and the Annual Meeting.

Philanthropic Strategies and Partnerships – This board member will look at strategic opportunities whereSV2 may be able to connect with other philanthropic institutions to further the field of philanthropy.

Accountability – This board member will assist and strengthen the overall evaluation efforts of SV2.

Grant Investment Leverage – This board member will work with SV2 Grantees and their Liaisons toidentify appropriate volunteer activities for SV2 partners and will help find partners willing to undertakethose volunteer projects.

Marketing and Technology Strategy – This board member will oversee SV2’s marketing andcommunications efforts, including the SV2 Web site and any marketing materials produced by SV2.


SI 80 SV2 Silicon Valley Social Venture Fund 060113

Documents

Transcript of SI 80 SV2 Silicon Valley Social Venture Fund 060113